TKD verus other arts

[Truestar]

A friend of mine doesn't take Tae Kwon Do seriously one tiny bit. He says its all a "show art" and that a real TKD practitioner would have no chance against someone who knows a more aggressive art such as Krav Maga which I know nothing of.

My argument was, and still is that any serious practitioner of any martial art has the chance to win in a fight. A punch is a punch, regardless of what martial art you know a punch to the ribs can shatter the bone and render an opponent likely defeated or at least seriously handicapped for the rest of the fight.

I think that its partially due to the media attention martial arts get. I can't recall a movie in modern times (past 10 or 20 years) where Tae Kwon Do was used by a character that defeated several enemies. Instead you see these movies where the Muay Thai character comes out on top.

I think the media has dumbed down certain arts, and the practitioners of the martial art help bring it down. The infamous "McDojos" that hand out black belts to 10 year olds, and the people who TKD schools as a business with no true meaning to the art. Fact is, because of the politics, and portrayal of some martial arts is placing them above or below others in peoples minds. I have confidence that a true TKD Martial Artist with years of training could put up a fight with someone in a more aggressive art. It's not the martial art, but rather the martial artist. There are so many bad representations of TKD today that I think its an art that's losing a serious audience.

The "flashiness" and "McDojos" drag down the art and make it seem ineffective in real life. Breaking is not something to show off in terms of knowledge of the martial art, yet that is what it is taken as today. I view breaking as an example of how much power the human body can achieve through TKD training, power that likely my peers probably wouldn't know how to focus.

This kind of came off as a rant rather than a discussion. I hope you all can still provide good chatter based on what I provided here.

[joesteph]

A friend of mine doesn't take Tae Kwon Do seriously one tiny bit. He says its all a "show art" and that a real TKD practitioner would have no chance against someone who knows a more aggressive art . . .

My argument was, and still is that any serious practitioner of any martial art has the chance to win in a fight. . . .

The way I see it, Truestar, you've got the wrong title for this topic. It's your friend's title, not your own, and it reflects his way of thinking, not yours at all. It isn't "vs" other arts; it's in comparison with other arts.

From the different posts I've read, TKD isn't kicking with some punches thrown in, but also takedowns and joint locks, which is up to the instructor to teach. Mastering any individual art is dependent upon the commitment of the student and the dedication of the instructor. Many posts in this forum have referred to knowledge from more than one art, as many members of this forum have studied more than one. Your friend does not sound like a true martial artist to me; a true martial artist is, to me, open-minded and well-rounded, seeing the good in the different arts and incorporating what is useful into his own body of knowledge. I think that every martial art has its strengths and weaknesses, but also that certain arts work better for some individuals than others, just as certain techniques within an art work better for some practitioners of that art than others.

It's hard, but keep your perspective as a serious practitioner when someone like this rains on your parade. The way I see it, you're the one with the healthy attitude.

[bushido_man96]

I think that most Martial Arts are "aggressive" arts, in and of the fact that they were designed to help prolong life and what not.

That said, it is going to come down to the skill level of the individual, and not the assumed aggressivness of a style. I think that it would be the practitioner that would be viewed as aggressive, as opposed to the art. But that's just me.

With the proper training, a TKDer can hold his own with any other stylist. Its all in the approach, and what the instructor has to offer, as it is with any other style.

[joesteph]

In looking through the site TKDTutor (http://www.tdktutor.com), I came across an article "Best Art." It's got a good content to it.

The direct link is:

http://www.tkdtutor.com/01MartialArts/BestArt/BestArt01.htm

Edited September 25, 2008 by joesteph

[bushido_man96]

That is an interesting article. It seems like it seeks to denounce ground fighting, much as the ground fighting stylists like the Gracies used to denounce stand-up styles through their challenge matches. However, it does end by talking about any art can be the best, depending on the instruction and practitioners.

I think that standing and ground fighting both have their place in defense. Some said that it is "better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have."

[MMA_Jim]

A friend of mine doesn't take Tae Kwon Do seriously one tiny bit. He says its all a "show art" and that a real TKD practitioner would have no chance against someone who knows a more aggressive art such as Krav Maga which I know nothing of

Krav Maga teaches a little more than just standup striking. There are a lot of bad techniques taught in Krav to make an experienced fighter, but it does have its virtues.

Simply put, Krav will teach boxing principles, a few kicking principles, and even some groundfighting principles. The biggest advantage a Krav practitioner would have over a TKD practicioner would be his limited knowledge of ground skills. This would prove to be invaluable. Whether the krav practicioner takes advantage of this is up to him.

In looking through the site TKDTutor (http://www.tdktutor.com), I came across an article "Best Art." It's got a good content to it.

The direct link is:

http://www.tkdtutor.com/01MartialArts/BestArt/BestArt01.htm

It does seem as if this webpage chooses to discredit groundwork- the problem is that they actually advocate it when you answer their questions/ statements asked intended to refute it:

What does a grappler do when attacked on stairs or on a subway or in knee deep snow or on a crowed street?

What he does best- grapple. Grappling favors close quarters since, surprise, a grappler wants to grapple. An in close fight almost guarentees that the fight will go into a clinch or grappling scenario, where a grappler can best use his weapons. Such a situation would be a death knell for a pure striker, such as the TKD this webpage suggests

What about an attacker with a knife or other concealed weapon? A person in a submission hold may not have an empty hand way of getting out of the hold, but a knife in the kidney will end the hold, and the holder. Thugs do not walk around with just one weapon. You may control the arm with the gun, but the other arm may pull a knife.

Submissions come on much quicker than they realize. First off, a dominant position makes for much easier to control someone. If Im mounted or cross side on you and you have a knife in your pocket- I'll guarentee you you're not going to get it, and I'll break your arm in the process. There are also numerous ways to control both of your opponents arms, especially if he is not knowledgeable of grappling. A head triangle and kimura attack works exceptionally well of doing just that, as does the techniques that the militech camp uses so well- watch how Matt Hughes delievers elbows from cross side. He locks up one arm with his bottom arm, triangles and locks up your other arm with his legs, and it now free to drop elbows on your face, from which his opponent now has no defense.

What is better suited for this situation- grabbing someone and actively preventing them from drawing their weapon in the first place, or backing up and giving them the space to draw the weapon (i.e. gun or knife) that you so earnestly dont want them to have?

When dragged into a broken glass filled alley, do you want to grapple on the ground?

Probably not- its a good thing that grapplers know takedowns, that way your opponent is on his back on the broken glass, dirty syringes, and lava pits, and not you.

Do you want to get into a test of strength with an attacker who is high on psychoactive drugs.

What does this have to do with grappling?

What does the grappler do when the attacker has a friend? Do you want to be on the ground holding an attacker, when a friend comes to his or her aid? While you are holding down one attacker, what will the other attacker be doing with your spouse?

Probably use his grappling skills and takedown defense to AVOID being taken to the ground. Grapplers are quite proficient in the clinch and have the luxury of choosing whether the fight goes to the ground or not. Someone not versed in grappling would be much easier to retrain in this circumstance. Those points aside, striking has proven to be no more effective at combating multiple opponents than has grappling.

An attacker may not be able to escape from your hold-down, but he or she will bite and spit

Spit? Is that what we're dreading these days? You're opponent can spit just as well on his feet or on the ground. Biting? Human teeth are quite pathetically weak and prove unable to go through simple fabrics such as denim. Any attempts to bite your way out of a choke will end up with a broken jaw- I've had people try that one on me.

If you are a law enforcement officer, do you want to grapple with a suspect and give him or her an opportunity to grab your firearm or other weapon

First off, a law enforcement officer MUST grapple with a suspect if he wishes to subdue and eventually arrest him. Unless he physically grabs and restrains him, the suspect runs.

Secondly, since a law enforcement officer must address this situation, its best that he become familiar with it. Anyone who attempts to reach for a weapon on someone's belt or waist gives themselves up to an easy guillotine or kimura lock. Its almost better that the officer has the gun on his hip than nothing at all- it almost guarentees that the assailant will reach for it, at which point the officer can apply a simple kimura, break the assailants arm/shoulder, and proceed to cuff his crippled suspect.

[tallgeese]

Couldn't agree more with your response to the article Jim. You summed up pretty much everything I was thinking while reading it very nicely.

On the Krav, I have see some schools that highly emphsis transition to and from weapons, giving them yet another distinct advantage. Again, milage will vary depending on who you train with.

As for the LE side of things, I think not nearly enough time is spent dealing with the grappling aspect of suspect control. My ground skills h ave done nothing but help me, even while I'm carrying all that stuff around. Is it different, sure. Which means that LE's should be traiinng on occasion with all their gear on. They should also be working on retreiving their primary weapon while in several positions and getting it to a firing position.

Right now, the overriding school of though seems to be "just don't go down", and yet most all the actual training in DT done by departments won't even talk about takedown defense, let alone actually working out of bad spots once you're there. There are a few notable exceptions, but they are that, exceptions.

There is also alot of garbage out there in the LE community when it comes to ground fighting that wouldn't work on an untrained mope, let alone anyone with skill. And there are more of those people out there all the time with the increase in the popularity of MMA events. Way too many to have such a little emphsis placed on it community wide. For some reason, nobody ever seems to consider that the average high school wrestler could probibly dump the average patrol cop on his back without a ton of effort.

Not to mention that to get cuffs on, as Jim mentioned, you've got to be hands on with this guy. In other words, you're in tight proximity. Just where a half trained grappler all drunked up would think it a good idea to tie up and go to the ground.

Grappling skills should definalty be taught more in LE applications. Both standing jujutsu (a japaneese background) and BJJ have both been verry handy to me in the past.

Sorry, now I'm ranting . I think I started just trying to say I agreed with Jim

[bushido_man96]

Kudos, tallgeese and MMA_Jim. Working in the county jail, I have found that hands-on is where you need to specialize. One's opportunity to strike is pretty limited, until the use of force escalates. Being able to control and manipulate an inmate is what you need to know. Now, not every LEO is going to end up in guard, but it can happen, and training for that eventuality is important.

[unknownstyle]

A friend of mine doesn't take Tae Kwon Do seriously one tiny bit. He says its all a "show art" and that a real TKD practitioner would have no chance against someone who knows a more aggressive art such as Krav Maga which I know nothing of.

My argument was, and still is that any serious practitioner of any martial art has the chance to win in a fight. A punch is a punch, regardless of what martial art you know a punch to the ribs can shatter the bone and render an opponent likely defeated or at least seriously handicapped for the rest of the fight.

I think that its partially due to the media attention martial arts get. I can't recall a movie in modern times (past 10 or 20 years) where Tae Kwon Do was used by a character that defeated several enemies. Instead you see these movies where the Muay Thai character comes out on top.

I think the media has dumbed down certain arts, and the practitioners of the martial art help bring it down. The infamous "McDojos" that hand out black belts to 10 year olds, and the people who TKD schools as a business with no true meaning to the art. Fact is, because of the politics, and portrayal of some martial arts is placing them above or below others in peoples minds. I have confidence that a true TKD Martial Artist with years of training could put up a fight with someone in a more aggressive art. It's not the martial art, but rather the martial artist. There are so many bad representations of TKD today that I think its an art that's losing a serious audience.

The "flashiness" and "McDojos" drag down the art and make it seem ineffective in real life. Breaking is not something to show off in terms of knowledge of the martial art, yet that is what it is taken as today. I view breaking as an example of how much power the human body can achieve through TKD training, power that likely my peers probably wouldn't know how to focus.

This kind of came off as a rant rather than a discussion. I hope you all can still provide good chatter based on what I provided here.

no art is better than another, its all about hard training. as far as media dumbing down arts, thats a negative its the practitioners that destroy an arts credibility. because one person waters something down and puts a name on it anyone who doesnt like it will assume that anything with a similar name must be just as bad. so i blame the practitioners and instructors of certain styles for the bad rap they get.

[MMA_Jim]

no art is better than another, its all about hard training. as far as media dumbing down arts, thats a negative its the practitioners that destroy an arts credibility. because one person waters something down and puts a name on it anyone who doesnt like it will assume that anything with a similar name must be just as bad. so i blame the practitioners and instructors of certain styles for the bad rap they get.

Its unfortunate that this simply is not the case. Some styles are simply better than others. Not all martial arts were created equally, and not all of them are designed to do the same thing. Modern day fighting/combat is much different than it was say, 1000 years ago. Some styles have changed with the time- others have not.

Take Kendo for example. Arguably a horrible martial art in terms of unarmed self defense- a wrestler or boxer would have no problem fighting a kendo practitioner... unless of course said practitioner has a sword, then its possibly the best form of self defense!

A karate practitioner will never be able to teach you to throw like a judoka, and a wrestler wil never be able to teach you how to punch as well as a boxer. Different styles are proficient at different things, some of them being much more (or much less) effective in a modern day altercation.

Most styles of martial arts were not taught as a means to defeat your opponent- they were taught as a means to generate time or space from your opponent allowing you to draw a secondary weapon with which to continue the fight.